Moot Scenario

Freedom of Speech
Exercise #03

Facts: Mr. Soori is another distinguished member of the Parliament in the Lower House
who belonged to the ruling party. After lodging of F.I.R against leader of the house
(party leader), Mr soori made a fiery speech on the floor of the house ‘Give me freedom’
and as result riots broke out in country. Speaker issued disciplinary proceedings against
Mr. Soori and latter was de-seated as a result.
Legislation: Article 19 of the constitution states that Every citizen shall have the right to
freedom of speech and expression, and there shall be freedom of the press, subject to
any reasonable restrictions imposed by law in the interest of the glory of Islam or the
integrity, security or defense of Pakistan or any part thereof, friendly relations with
foreign States, public order, decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of court,
33[commission of] 33 or incitement to an offense.
Case Law: PLD 2017 Islamabad 64 Ali Raza and others versus Federation of Pakistan
states that The Constitution though secured the right to free speech but had not left the
same unchecked. State had a compelling interest in regulating the right to speech when
it came in a conflict with the right of other individuals or other societal interests .
Issue/Moot question: Whether the Mr. Soori’s speech on floor of NA a violation of his
constitutional right to freedom of Speech.
Solve the issue above by following the steps below:
Step 1: Inductive Analysis
Construct Synthesized Rule and find your why and how

Step 2: Deduction/Categorical syllogism

Applying the sound test of syllogism/Fallacy checklist [rough work only]

Step 3: Conclusion (in rhetorical syllogistic form)

STEP 1: INDUCTIVE ANALYSIS

Hypothesis Legislation Case law

Minor premise/OB1 According to Article 19 of
the constitution, "Every
citizen shall have the right
to freedom of expression
and of the press, subject to
any reasonable restrictions
imposed by law in the
interest of the glory of
Islam or the integrity,
security, or defense of
Pakistan or any part
thereof, friendly relations
with foreign States, public
order, decency, or
morality, or in relation to
contempt of court." 33
[commission of] 33 or
encouragement to commit
a crime.
Major premise/OB1 PLD 64 Islamabad 2017 The
claim made by Ali Raza and
others against the Federation
of Pakistan is that although
the Constitution guaranteed
the right to free expression, it
did not leave it uncontrolled.
When the right to free speech
clashed with the rights of
other people or other societal
interests, the state had a
strong stake in controlling it.

Synthesized Rule: The constitution has secured freedom of speech but allows
regulation when conflicting with others’ rights or societal interests.
STEP 2: DEDUCTION/CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISM

Explanation: The constitution has secured freedom of speech (B) but allows regulation
when conflicting with others’ rights or societal interests.(C)
Evidence: Mr. Soori’s speech (A) availed his right of freedom of speech (B) and
made a fiery speech on the floor of the house, resultantly riots broke out in country.
Claim: Mr. Soori’s speech (A) is conflicting with others’ rights or societal interests
(C) since it led to riot, potentially justifying state intervention.

A. SOUND TEST OF SYLLOGISM

Rules Description Status

Rule#1 Synthesized rule must be a reasonably true statement Met

Rule#2 There must be three comparable terms A, B & C Met

Rule#3 (i) Both subject terms of major and minor premises (A & B) must Met
be fully distributed.

(ii)Subject term of an affirmative statement is always presumed Met

distributed.

(iii) Middle term (B) must be distributed once in either major or Met
minor premises

(iv) When middle term (B) is predicate of an affirmative Met

statement, it is presumed to be undistributed.

(v) When middle term (B) is subject term of an affirmative Met

statement, it is presumed to be fully distributed.

(vi) Middle terms (B) must not be mentioned in N/A

conclusion/claim.
 Rule 4 One negative premise and one positive premise will lead to a N/A
negative conclusion

Rule 5 Two negative premises will lead to no conclusion N/A

B. FALLACY CHECKLIST

Fallacy Status
Logically unsound N/A

factually incorrect N/A

morally flawed. N/A

self-contradictory N/A

irrelevant N/A

Over generalized/assumed/presumed without evidence. N/A

Improbable/far fetched N/A

STEP 3: CONCLUSION (IN RHETORICAL SYLLOGISTIC FORM)

While exercising his right to free speech, Mr. Soori inadvertently incited nationwide riots
with his fiery speech. This activity, which is contrary to social interests by producing
such turmoil, may necessitate reasonable state intervention, despite the constitutional
guarantee of free expression..